VIJAY KUMAR SONI,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री ननखखल चौिरी, लेखा सदस्य के समछ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ ITA No.931/LKW/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2024-25 Vijay Kumar Soni v. Assessment Unit/ITO-1, Near Thakurdwara Phakharpur, Bahraich Madhavpur, Bahraich-271902. Income Tax Department/NFAC 423A, Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Road, Brahmnipura, Bahraich- 271801. PAN:BIDPS4617K अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant by: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent by: Shri Sudhakar Shukla, CIT(DR) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date of hearing: 12 10 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date of 28 10 2026 pronouncement: O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.06.2026, pertaining to the assessment year 2024-25. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without properly adjudicating the application for condonation of delay and without appreciating the reasonable cause shown by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal, and consequently in confirming the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. of the I.T. Act, 1961, without admitting the appeal and adjudicating the appeal on merits.

ITA No. 931/LKW/2026 Page 2 of 4 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,43,86,517/-, being the alleged difference between the cash deposits of Rs.2,11,21,054/- in the bank accounts and the declared business turnover of Rs.67,34,537/-, on the basis of incorrect information and without bringing any independent, cogent and reliable material on record to establish that the alleged difference represented the appellant's unexplained money or undisclosed income. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had declared his business income under the presumptive taxation provisions of section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had furnished during the assessment proceedings relevant material, including the cash book, Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet, GST returns, including GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and bank statements, which were relevant for determining the nature and source of the cash deposits in the bank accounts. 4. That the learned CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,43,86,517/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating that the cash deposited in the bank accounts represented business receipts/turnover arising from the appellant's regular business and duly disclosed in the return of income and other records maintained by the appellant. 5. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AD and, subject to the conditions of the said provision, was not required to maintain such books of account and documents as prescribed under section 44AA(2). Accordingly, the impugned addition under section 69A, based merely on the alleged difference between bank deposits and declared turnover and without establishing that the said amount constituted unexplained money belonging to the appellant, is unjustified and liable to be deleted. 6. That the appellant craves permission for amending the aforesaid grounds of appeal and/or for raising fresh grounds of appeal.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) vide order dated 09.03.2026 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), whereby the AO made an addition of Rs.1,43,86,517/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

ITA No. 931/LKW/2026 Page 3 of 4 of being heard the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in their right perspective. He submitted that the assessment order was passed on 09.03.2026 and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was preferred with a delay of only a few days, which was attributable to the illness of the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee had offered income for taxation under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. The relevant material and supporting evidence were duly placed before the lower authorities. However, without properly appreciating the facts in right perspective, the authorities proceeded to pass the impugned orders ex parte. He, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

ITA No. 931/LKW/2026 Page 4 of 4 not provided adequate opportunity even before the Assessing Authority there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, Considering the totality of the facts and the material placed before us, we hereby condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer who would pass the assessment afresh after verifying the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed by way of the relevant evidence with regard to purchase invoices, stock register, customers-wise sales details or PAN information of customers wherever applicable, and such other supporting evidence as may be furnished by the assessee. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ननखखल चौिरी] [कुल भारत] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष/VICE PRESIDENT ददनांक/DATED: 28/10/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT Digitally signed by VIJAY PAL 4. DR VIJAY PAL SINGH 5. Guard File SINGH Date: 2026.10.28 16:09:16 +05'30' By Order Sr. Private Secretary //True Copy//